Friedman and Walsh

So unfortunately I won't be able to go listen to Thomas Friedman tonight. A work-related dinner came up and I have to go to that. I'm sending my brother-in-law and his friend instead; perhaps he'll report back.

Meanwhile, Rebecca Walsh of the SL Trib criticized the Utah Museum of Natural History and the Hinckley Institute of Politics over the whole thing in her column last Sunday.

While I often like Walsh's work, I disagree with her on this. (And I should say that I'm in no way affiliated with either the UMNH or the Hinckley Institute, although both are affiliated with the U of Utah.)

It's certainly the case that Friedman is earning a lot of money for this visit. And it's also the case that the message he'll deliver isn't that different from what a lot of people are saying. The UMNH could, for example, hire yours truly to deliver an insightful lecture on carbon taxes vs. cap-and-trade systems --- and I'd probably do it for a just bit less than the $75,000 Friedman is going to make.

But the local media wouldn't cover a talk from me like they'll cover a talk from Friedman.

And let's keep in mind that the UMNH's mission is to "illuminate the natural world and the place of humans within it." Paying me (or other U faculty) will get you a lecture, but no "illumination" because my talk wouldn't be in the news. Paying Friedman gets you a lecture plus a lot of illumination.

Given that the Museum has a budget, it seems like we should let them spend in the way that they think will have the biggest impact with respect to their mission. Friedman's a high-impact guy. It seems completely reasonable to me to have one expensive-but-high-impact guy, rather than ten cheap-but-low-impact guys. I don't know that Walsh would criticize if the Museum was spending $7,500 each on ten low-profile speakers. (Or $750 each on a hundred really-low-profile speakers, like me.)

Perhaps the Museum shouldn't have a budget at all in these lean times, but that strikes me as a somewhat different conversation.